Sunita Vaman Gaikwad vs Khalapur Police Station — 20/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 10th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRG080002232026
e-Filing Number
16-02-2026
Filing Number
190/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
20/2026
Registration Date
17-02-2026
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Khalpuar
Judge
1-1 Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Khalpuar
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sunita Vaman Gaikwad
Adv. Sarita pundalik waghmare
Respondent(s)
Khalapur Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 1-1 Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Khalpuar
Disposed
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 05-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 27-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 17-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the application under Section 503 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered the return of 0.470 milligrams of gold jewelry (valued at Rs. 5,858) to the applicant, Sunita Vaman Gayakwad, who had proven ownership through purchase bills and other documentary evidence. The court rejected the police's argument that the seized article could be modified or sold, finding that the applicant's right to the property was established and that prolonged detention in the police station served no purpose pending trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the application under Section 503 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered the return of 0.470 milligrams of gold jewelry (valued at Rs. 5,858) to the applicant, Sunita Vaman Gayakwad, who had proven ownership through purchase bills and other documentary evidence. The court rejected the police's argument that the seized article could be modified or sold, finding that the applicant's right to the property was established and that prolonged detention in the police station served no purpose pending trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts